The problem is that the strength or weakness of an argument is not objective. Usually steelmanning is fallacious when you don't first seek agreement with the c

The problem is that the strength or weakness of an argument is not objective. Usually steelmanning is fallacious when you don't first seek agreement with the counterparty that the new version of the argument is stronger. This comes up a lot when your counterparty is operating from different premises than you are. E.g. attacking a utilitarian version of your conterparty's argument when the counterparty is not a utilitarian is fallacious, even if the utilitarian version of the argument seems stronger to you. They will see the argument as obviously flawed from the start, because they do not believe the utilitarian premise.